IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LOKOJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LOKOJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE Z.M. BASHIR.

 

 

Dated this 13th day of February, 2018               SUIT N0: NICN/ABJ/421/2016

 

BETWEEN:

1. Incorporated Trustees

of Association of Medical Laboratory

Scientists of Nigeria (AMLSN)

 

2. MLS Lawal Nathaniel Amos (Chairman,

Association of Medical Laboratory                                                     

Scientists of Nigeria, Federal Medical Centre                 Claimants/Respondents

Lokoja Chapter, Kogi State).

 

3. MLS Obajemu Samuel Association of Medical

Scientists of Nigeria,

Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja Chapter,

Kogi State).

 

AND

 

1. Honourable Attorney General of the Federation

and Minister of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, Abuja.

 

2. Honourable Minister of Health,

Federal Ministry of Health,

Abuja.

 

3. Board of Management, Federal Medical Centre,                      Defendants/Respondents

Lokoja, Kogi State.

 

4. Dr. Olatunde Alabi

(Acting Chief Medical Director,

Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja,

Kogi State).

                                                                                               

5. Dr. Taiwo Jones,

(Acting head of Clinical

Services, Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja,                        Defendants/Respondents

Kogi State).

                                                                                                         

6. Mr. Stephen Famolu

(Acting Head, Department of

Administration, Federal

Medical Centre, Lokoja,

Kogi State).

 

 

Incorporated Trustees of

Medical and Dental Consultants’                           Applicant

Association of Nigeria                                                                                                                                                                                    

Representation:

K.O. Ijatuyi for the Claimants/Respondents

C.P. Ocheja

With:

E.A. Mejabi and

Enyo Onoja for the 3rd – 6th Defendants/Respondents

C.O. Okoh for Interested Applicant seeking to be joined

 

RULING

This matter was commenced by way of originating summons filed by the Claimant dated and filed on the 22nd of November, 2016. the originating summons is brought pursuant to sections 6 & 254 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), sections 7, 12 (2) (a) and 13 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, Orders 3 rule 5 and 26 rule 13 of the National Industrial Court rules, 2007, Practice Direction 2012, National Industrial Court of Nigeria and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

The said originating summons is accompanied by a 23 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Amos Nathaniel Lawal, dated and filed on the 22nd of November, 2016. Also in support is a written address filed on the same date.

 

The originating summons is asking the court to determine the following questions:

1.       Whether under the clear provisions of the Medical Laboratory Science Council of Nigeria Act No 11 of 2003 (An Act that regulates the profession of the Claimants wherever they are engaged at both Federal and State Tertiary Health Institutions in Nigeria), a person who is not a member of the profession is entitled to practice the profession.

 

2.       Whether having regard to the said Act No 11 of 2003 and the Scheme of Service made pursuant thereto by the Federal Government for Medical Laboratory Scientists, Pathologists of whatever grade, who are not members of the Claimants’ profession, can practice the said profession either directly or through a scheme of Control, Supervision, Management or Approval of the professional work of a Medical Laboratory Scientist.

 

3.       Whether having regard to the provisions of Act No 11 of 2003 and/or the Scheme of Service approved by the Federal Government (made pursuant thereto) for their cadre, Medical Laboratory Scientists in the employment of the 3rd Defendant, are not entitled to autonomy of practice within the field of their competencies and trainings as a distinct professional group.

 

4.       Whether having regard to the clear decisions of this Honourable in relation to questions 1 to 3 above in the following cases, which are in favour of the Claimants Professional Group; namely; -

 

A.      SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/128/2012- ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS OF NIGERIA & TWO OTHERS V. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE & FIVE OTHERS-JUDGEMENT DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS ON 23RD OCT, 2013.

 

B.       SUIT NO: NICN/JOS/8/2O14-ASOCIATION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS OF NIGERIA & THREE OTHERS V. JOS UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITAL & THREE OTHERS-JUDGEMENT DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS ON 5TH OCT., 2015.

 

C.       SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/284/2014-NIGERIA UNION OF PHARMACISTS, MEDICAL TECHNOLOGISTS AND PROFESSIONALS ALLIED TO MEDICINE & ANOR V. OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITALS COMPLEX MANAGEMENT BOARD & SIX OTHERS – JUDGEMENT DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTIST ON 27TH JAN., 2016.

 

D.      SUIT NO NICN/ABJ/285/2014-INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION ON MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS OF NIGERIA & TWO OTHERS V. HON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE & SEVEN OTHERS-JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS ON 9TH JUNE, 2016,

 

They (Claimants), are entitled to professional autonomy and separate Department at the Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja, Kogi State

 

The Claimants then seeks the following reliefs, jointly and severally, from the Defendants:

1.       A Declaration that by virtue of the Medical Laboratory Science Council of Nigeria Act No 11 of 2003, only persons qualified and fully registered as Medical Laboratory Scientists can practice the profession in any Public Health Institution in Nigeria (including Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja, Kogi State) subject only to the provision of Section 22 (2) of the said Act.

2.       A Declaration that by virtue of the Scheme of Service approved by the Federal Government for the cadre of the Medical Laboratory Scientists, responsibility for the supervision, management and control of the Medical Laboratory Department is placed on the Director, Medical Laboratory Services or the most Senior Medical Laboratory Scientist in the said Department.

3.       A Declaration that Medical Laboratory Scientists employed in the Service of the Defendants (Particularly 3rd Defendant) are by virtue of the said Act No 11 of 2003 and/or the Scheme of Service approved by the Federal Government for their cadre, entitled to autonomy of practice within their field of competence and in their own separate Department as distinct professionals.

4.       A Declaration that Pathologists of whatever grade in the employment of the Defendants at the Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja, Kogi State, who are not registered Medical Laboratory Scientists, are not entitled to practice the profession of the Claimants in any manner, design or disguise whatsoever as presently being done by the 3rd to 6th Defendants.

5.       An order setting aside all decisions taken by the Defendants (especially 3rd in 6th Defendants) which are contrary to the provisions of the Scheme of Service approved by the Federal Government for Medical Laboratory Scientists as they relate to their professional competencies.

6.       Injunction Restraining the Defendants (especially 3rd to 6th Defendants) from eroding or undermining the autonomy of practice by Medical Laboratory Scientists either by permitting Non-Medical Laboratory Scientists to intermeddle in the practice of Medical Laboratory Science or by imposing supervisory control of non-Scientists on Medical Laboratory Scientists in the Hospital.

7.       A Declaration that all the four clear decisions of this Honourable Court relating to all the issues raised in this suit are binding on the Defendant, especially 3rd to 6th Defendants.

 

In response to the originating summons, the 2nd – 6th Defendants filed a motion on notice for extension of time to file memorandum of appearance and counter affidavit in opposition of the originating summons. The motion is dated 16th of January, 2017 and filed on the 17th of January 2017. The motion was supported by a 7 paragraph  affidavit and written address.

The 2nd – 6th Defendant then filed a 17 paragraph counter affidavit in opposition to the originating summons and a written address. Both processes were filed on the 17th of January, 2017.

A motion on notice was also filed for the extension of time to file counter affidavit and written address for the 3rd – 6th Defendants. The motion is dated the 17th of January, 2017 and filed on the same date. The motion  was supported by a 6 paragraph affidavit and a written address.

The counter affidavit and written address of the 3rd – 6th Defendant is dated the 17th of January, 2017 and filed on the same date.

The 3rd – 6th Defendant also filed a notice of preliminary objection date the 17th of January, 2017 and filed  on the same date. The notice of preliminary objection is supported by a written address also dated the 17th of January, 2017 and filed on the same date.

 

As parties were ready to proceed with the suit, the Incorporated Trustees of Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria filed an application as Interested party. The motion on notice is dated the 10th of November, 2017 and filed on the same date.

The said motion is brought pursuant to section 36(1), 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); Order 13 rule 4, 14 (3), Order 17 rule 1(1-9) and under the inherent jurisdiction of this court.

 

The Applicant is by the motion praying this court for the following orders:

 

1.       AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to the applicant to file a memorandum of appearance

2.       AN ORDER deeming the memorandum of appearance as properly filed and served by counsel on behalf of the applicant, the appropriate filing fees having been paid.

3.       AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to the applicant to sue as interested parties in suit No. N1CN/ABJ/421/2016 between INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS OF NIGERIA (AMLSN) AND TWO OTHERS and THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FIVE OTHERS

4.       AN ORDER naming the applicant as defendant in suit No. NICN/ABJ/421/2016

5.       AN ORDER that the originating processes be amended in consonance with the order for joinder.

6.       AN ORDER of Court directing that all the processes filed in suit No. NICN/ABJ/421/2016 be served on the applicant.

7.       AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as this court deems fit to make given the circumstances of this matter.

The Applicant predicated the application on 13 grounds which are:

1.       The applicant is a body of elders in medicine and Dentistry who are consultants specialized in all areas of medical and Dental practice, hospital management and health service delivery.

2.       The applicants have branches in various hospitals across the country including Federal Medical Center, Lokoja in Kogi State.

3.       The applicant members are responsible for whatever happens in the hospitals.

4.       The applicant members are trainers and examiners of medical practitioners and other health workers including the claimants.

5.       That the applicants only became aware of the suit on 20th August, 2017.

6.       The reliefs sought by the claimants before the Honourable court are alien to health care service delivery.

7.       The reliefs sought if granted will grossly prejudice the interest of patients for whom the hospitals are meant.

8.       The premise upon which the reliefs are sought is erroneous.

9.       The reliefs sought if granted will divest the applicant members of the right to practice what they are trained to practice.

10.     The reliefs sought if granted will have serious negative impact on the duty which the applicant members are mandated to carry out by virtue of the training they acquired regarded as normal procedure in hospitals.

11       The hospital structure in existence before its disturbance by the claimants was deliberately put in place for quality assurance to patients.

I2.     The intervention of the applicant is necessary for the progress of the health sector in Nigeria.

13.     It would serve the supreme interest of justice, equity and fairness to entertain and grant the reliefs sought by the applicant.

The motion is supported by a 4 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Christiana Onuorah dated the 10th of November, 2017 and filed on the same date.

The motion is also supported by a written address dated and filed on the 10th of November, 2017.

 

In opposition to the motion on notice filed by the Applicant, the Claimants filed a 17 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Mathew John dated the 28th of November, 2017 and a written address which were filed on the 28th of November, 2017.

 

The Applicant then filed a 12paragraph further and better affidavit deposed to by one Zubair Kabiru and filed on the 30th of November, 2017 and supported same with a written address dated the 29th of November, 2017 and filed on the 30th of November, 2017.

 

From the written address in support of the motion on notice for joinder filed by the Applicant, Counsel to the Applicant, C.O. Okoh raised a lone issue for determination to wit:

 

“Whether the applicant should be joined as a defendant in the suit”.

 

In arguing the lone issue, learned Counsel contended that the apex court confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to make this application when it stated that “Joinder of parties, either plaintiffs or defendants, is allowed in our procedural law.” Counsel cited the case of OGOLO & ORS V FUBURA & ORS. (2003) LPELR-2310(SC).

And the case of OKOROCHA V PDP & ORS(2014) LPELR-22058(SC) to establish that a party may be joined as a person interested in a suit very early or midstream depending on when he knew of the proceedings. In this regard, Counsel referred to paragraph 3(k) of the affidavit in support of the motion with respect to when they became aware of this suit and how they took steps to seek to be joined which is the reason why this application is been filed at this time.

 

Learned Counsel also contended that the indispensability of this application is further reinforced by the principle of law that a person who seeks to joined in a suit he is not made a party, does so with the desire to shield himself from irreparable prejudice to his interest. The parties could become estopped from raising the issue again having stood by, acquiesce, when the litigation was on. Counsel cited the case of LEAD MERCHANT BANK LTD V. SALAMI & ORS. (2007) LPELR8600.

Counsel urged this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed as the applicant will be guilty of standing by and acquiescence if this application is not made.

Counsel further contended that it is settled law that a party maybe joined in a suit if he has shown how his interest will be or is affected by the decision of the court. And that the interest are as stated in the applicant’s supporting affidavit particularly paragraphs 3(b), (c), (e), (f)-(j), paragraph 4(f)-(h) and grounds of application which has sufficiently shown how their interest will be affected  counsel cited the case of BALONWU & ORS v. GOVERNOR ANAMBRA STATE & ORS (2008) LPELR-4907(CA) Per OMAGE, J.C.A.(P.23, Paras. E-F); (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1113) 236 C.A.

 

Counsel further cited the case of OKOLI V OJIAKOR (1997) 1 NWLR (pt. 479 ) 48 p. 57 paragraphs B — D, to capture the principle or factors that the court is to take into consideration for joinder of parties. Counsel placed emphasis on section 36(1) and section 46(1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and on the strength of same  urged this court to uphold the applicant’s right to fair hearing and hold that the applicant has rights and interest to protect in this case.

The learned counsel also referred this court to the provisions of Order 13 rule 4 and Order 13 Rule 14(3) of the Rules of this court to contend that the rules of this court supports the reliefs sought by the Applicant.

 

In conclusion, Counsel cited several other authorities and concluded that The law is well settled, that where an order of joinder of parties is made, it behooves the court to order that the originating processes be amended in consonance with the said order of joinder’.  Counsel cited the case of THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONDO STATE V. TENE & ORS (2015) LPELR-25730(CA) and urged this court to make same consequential order.

 

In opposition to the application for joinder, Learned Counsel to the Claimants/Respondents, K.O. Ijatuyi through his written address raised a lone issue for determination to wit:

“Whether this application, having regard to the surrounding circumstances of this case is meritorious”

In arguing the lone issue, Learned Counsel argued that the principles for joinder of parties are now well settled in a plethora of cases and cited the following cases:

(a)      Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480

(b)     Okoli v. Ojiakor (1997) INWLR (Pt. 479) 48 at 57

(c)      Col. Yakubu (Rtd.) v. The Governor of Kogi State & Others (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 414) 36.

Learned Counsel then contended that from the Counter Affidavit filed in opposition to this application, it is clear that the 2nd 4th and 5th Defendants are sufficient to defend the interest of the Interested Party/Applicant. He referred the court to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Counter Affidavit.

Counsel further contended that it is trite, that he that comes to equity must come with clean hands. That the Applicant herein claimed to become aware of this suit only on 20th August, 2017 but from the Affidavit in support of this application, Dr. Kassim, mentioned by the Applicant in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, had deposed to different affidavits in this suit on 17th January, 2017.

 

Counsel upon the above submitted that the Honourable Court cannot assist a party that approaches it with lies or misleading facts.

Counsel further contended that from the circumstances of this case, the joinder of the Applicant is not necessary in this matter because the presence of the 2nd 4th and 5th Defendants are more than enough to protect its interest.

 

Learned Counsel also submitted with respect that the authorities cited by learned counsel to the Applicant are correct on the legal principles to be followed in an application for joinder. However, the peculiar facts of this application made the said authorities and principles inapplicable and therefore unmeritorious.

He therefore urged the Court to resolve the lone issue raised in the application against the Applicant and consequently dismiss same.

 

Learned counsel to the Applicant, C.O. Okoh through the written reply in support of the further and better affidavit submitted two issues for determination to wit:

1.       Whether the interested party/applicant has an interest to defend in the suit

2.       Whether the court should attach any value to a party who is in flagrant default of the court rules and the law.

 

With regards to issue 1, learned counsel contended that the Claimants/Respondent in paragraph 4.7 of their written address has acknowledged that the Applicant has an interest. Counsel quoted paragraph 13 of the Counter affidavit in opposition and paragraph 4.7 of the written address in support. Counsel cited the case of CARRENA & ORS. V. AROWOLO & ORS. (2C8) LPELR-833 (SC); (2008) 6-7 S.C. (Pt. 1).

 With regards to issue two, counsel cited Order 17 Rule 14 of the rules of this court and contended that The applicants had admitted in paragraph 6 of their counter affidavit that they were served on the 10th of November, 2017. They had seven days by order 14 rule 10 of the rules of this court until the 17th November, 2017 but in disobedience of court rules decided to file their counter affidavit eighteen days later and serve on the applicant while the matter was going on in open court just to spring surprise on the applicants and causing unnecessary delay to their advantage, which would have been avoided if the claimants/respondents had filed their process within time. Counsel cited the case of OWNERS OF MV ARABELA V NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (2008) 11 NWLR (PT.1097), AROMOLARAN V OLADELE (1990) 7 NWLR (PT.162) 359 and CLEMENT V IWANYANWU (1989) 4 Sc. To buttress that the rules of Court are meant to be obeyed.

Counsel also contended that the Counter affidavit of the Claimants/Respondent should be discountenanced citing section 115 (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Learned Counsel concluded by citing the case of ODADHE v. OKUJENI & 2 ORS. (1973) 11 S.C. Per IBEKWE, J.S.C (Pp. 10-11, paras. G-A) and submitted that so long as this matter is still at its trial stage and parties have not even finally addressed the Honourable Court, it does not really matter whether the applicant knew about this case on the 20th of August 2017.

 

Upon a careful consideration of the written addresses filed by the parties and the argument for and against the said application, the issue formulated by the Claimant/Respondent is apt and this court adopts same to wit:

 

“Whether this application, having regard to the surrounding circumstances of this case is meritorious”

 

The purpose of joinder was clearly stated in the case of ABUBAKAR DUDU MOTORS & ANOR v. KACHIA (2016) LPELR-40228(CA) where the court held that:

 

"The main reason or purpose for joinder of a party or parties in a suit is to make that person(s) bound by the results of the suit, and the question to be settled therefore must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he or they are made a party or parties."Per BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Pp.15-16, Paras. F-A)

 

 

The court went further to state the principle governing the issue of joinder of parties by holding that:

"As pointed out in Chief of Staff v. Lawal (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1307) P.62 @ 70, in determining whether to join a person to a suit or not, the Court is to peruse the pleadings or any affidavit, if filed in the case/suit by the parties. "Per BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-12, Paras.F-A)

 

I have painstakingly read the affidavits filed in support and in opposition of the said application.

 

While the learned counsel to the Applicant, C.O. Okoh had relied on the case of OKOROCHA V PDP & ORS(2014) LPELR-22058(SC) where the principle of law was stated that a party may be joined as a person interested in a suit very early or midstream depending on when he knew of the proceedings. She then referred the court to paragraph 3(k) of the affidavit in support to establish that the Applicant became aware of the proceeding on the 20th of August, 2017. Mention was made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of a certain Dr. Kassim, the Chairman of the Applicant’s Legal Advisory Committee in the Federal Medical Centre Lokoja branch who informed the Applicants Counsel of certain facts on behalf of the Applicant which the deponent believed to be true.

Counsel to the Claimants/Respondents, K.O. Ijatuyi with regards to the assertion of when the Applicant became aware of this suit, contended that the said Dr. Kassim had deposed to different affidavits in this suit on 17th January, 2017 therefore it is not correct that the Applicant became aware of the suit on 20th of August, 2017 and the court should not assist a party that approaches it with misleading facts.

The Applicant through the further and better affidavit  in support of the application, established via paragraph 6 that the Applicant is not aware of any deposition to affidavit by Dr. Kassim on its behalf.

 

With regards to this contention, there is no doubt that the Applicant before this court for joinder is the Incorporated Trustees of Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria and not the said Dr. Kassim and I so hold.              

Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent also contended that the presence of the 2nd 4th and 5th Defendants are more than enough to protect its interest. In reaction to this, the further and better affidavit in support of the application via paragraph 12 establishes that the 3rd (sic) 4th and 5th Defendants were not sued as members of the applicant association and I so hold.                     

In further address of the issue for determination, this court places reliance on the decision of the court  in the case of OKOLI V OJIAKOR (1997) 1 NWLR (pt. 479 ) 48 p. 57 paragraphs B — D, where the court held thus:

“In order to be joined as a party in a suit, the courts take a number of principles or factors into consideration. Some of them include the following:

 

(a) The party is aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the result of the litigation to the extent that he will be directly, legally or financially affected by the result of the litigation.

(b) To avoid multiplicity of suits arising from the same subject matter or res.

(c) To enable the court fully, completely and effectually deal with the suit in order to frustrate or stop a possible future litigation on it.

(d) To ensure that the principles of fair hearing under section 33 of the 1979

Constitution and the natural justice rule of audi alteram partem are not breached.”

 

Furthermore, in the case of R.T.N.A & ors. V. M.H.W.U.N. & ors. (2008) 1 S.C. (Pt.III) 1, the Supreme Court held that:

"An applicant who desires to be joined as a party to a suit is required to show that he will be bound by the ultimate result of the action, as the orders in the judgment will affect it, and its interest will be prejudiced if it is not joined. Another test is that the action may not be completely settled without the party sought to be joined as a party in the suit" Per Mukhtar J.S.C. See also Attorney General Plateau State v. Attorney General Nasarawa State 2005 9 NWLR part 930, page 421, Badejo v. Federal Ministry of Education 1998 NWLR part 464 page 15,

 

These factors are indeed sufficient to be considered in determining whether or not the

present application for joinder rightly deserves to be granted.

The affidavit in support of the application establishes via paragraphs 3 (a), (b) and (d) that Applicant is a body of consultant-specialists in the field of dentistry and medicine and a major stake holder in major decisions that affects overall patient care in hospitals in Nigeria. The Applicant also have branches in various hospitals across the country including  Federal Medical Centre, Lokoja in Kogi State which is the hospital in question.

Considering these facts, whatever grievance the Applicant may have for having sought to be joined would be heard once and for all if granted this application and would serve the court the avoidance of multiplicity of suit; enable the court to fully, completely and effectually deal with the suit in order to avoid future litigation and serve as an upholding of the principle of fair hearing now guaranteed  under section 36 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 

 

Consequent upon the above, it is the ruling of this court that this application is meritorious and this court hereby grants all the prayers sought by the Applicant to wit:

 

1.       AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to the applicant to file a memorandum of appearance

2.       AN ORDER deeming the memorandum of appearance as properly filed and served by counsel on behalf of the applicant, the appropriate filing fees having been paid.

3.       AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to the applicant to sue as interested parties in suit No. N1CN/ABJ/421/2016 between INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS OF NIGERIA (AMLSN) AND TWO OTHERS and THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FIVE OTHERS

4.       AN ORDER naming the applicant as defendant in suit No. NICN/ABJ/421/2016

5.       AN ORDER that the originating processes be amended in consonance with the order for joinder.

6.       AN ORDER of Court directing that all the processes filed in suit No. NICN/ABJ/421/2016 be served on the applicant.

 

The said Applicant is hereby joined as the 7th Defendant in this suit.

 

 

 

…………………………………………………………

HON. JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR

JUDGE.